PROHIBITION IN THE CLUTHA.

Otago Witness, Issue 2299, 24 March 1898, Page 35

PROHIBITION IN THE CLUTHA.

REPLY TO THE MAGISTRATE'S (MR HAWKINS) REPORT. At a meeting of the Clutha Presbytery Officebearers' Association held at Ealcluths. on January 12, the repoit of Mr Hawkins, S.M., on the working of prohibition in the Clutha was considered. After consideration the Reva. Currie, Kilpatrick, and Messrs W. B Anderson (Waiwera), John Johnston (Kaibiku), W. Patergon (Puerua), and S. Young (Owaka) were appointed a committee to gather information from the office-bearers of the churches within the electorate on the questions raised by M>- Hawkins, and to draw up a short report embodjicg both this information and the opinions expressed by those present at the meeting. In order to make the report fuller and inors satisfactory, it was agreed to obtain the opinion of representatives of the Wesleyan churches of .Tapanui and Balclutha, and the name of the Rev. W. J. Elliott was added to the committee. Replies were obtained from the following centze6 : — Tapanui (Presbyterian and Wesleyan), Knapdale, Waikaka, Pukorau and Wnipahi, ClintOD, Waiwera, Warepa and Kaihilm, Puerua and Port Molyneux, Owaka, and Balclutha. " - The committee. . summarise and report aB follows :—ln: — In dealing with this magisterial deliverance it is evident that only the latter portions of it require rebutting evidence. Almost one-half of the report is in the nature of an introduction, in which Mr Hawkins seeks "to explain the attitude of the population towards prohibition." To an impartial reader the explanation looks very much like an apology. Ha says the minority " feel that they are the victims of an arbitrary law and or an arbitrary territorial boundary," bub nobody can read the paragraphs dealing with these matters without observing an undercurrent of sympathy with, these men. Mr Hawkins regards the Alcoholic Liquora Sale Control Act as thrust upon Parliament ' by an organisation of veiy active and zealous persons." What are the facia ? At this last gtnarai flection 98,000 voted " no license" &nd over 20,000 voted for "reduction," show- • ing clearly that local option w.as a popular de-. mand. Mr Hawkins further assumes that Parliament in passing this law anticipated seeing ; ifcn " prohibitive provisions carried in a number j of large and important electoral districts and centres of population." Again what are the facts ? The previously existing Local Option Aot allowed of prohibition fae'ug carried in boronghs and ridings, and yet as far as we know prohibition .was carried only in Sr.utfc Molyneux and one or two other districts Parliament thus had already given practically similar pawer3 to areas suoller than those contemplated in the present act. Furthermore, how could these larger areas Mr Hawkins affirms Parliament had in view affect the pie-enfe issue ? Even with colonial prohibition the law by many would be regarded as " arbitrary," while to take Mr Hawkint's larger areas there might be a whole electorate in the position of Tapanui in having its wishes overidden by an ODu&ide majority. It is hardly necessity lo deal at length with the strange ethical standard Me Hawkins suppoies the psoplo have before them in this matter. Public opinion, it would seem, fixes this, and at will alters it ; but should public j opinion be remiss. Parliament, it appear?, can ■ exercise the same high function. A thing ! malum in se (apart altogether from the question whether the use of alcoholic liquors comes under this category) surely remains such irrespective of the vesrstgs of publ c opinion «r a eesßtonal resolution of P*rliaaieut. ) In dealing with" the enforcement of this pro- i hibitory law, Mr Hawkins asserts that no one can say that "the law has been allowed to Bleep by the Executive, or has not been fairly i , put in operation and tried." Wh*t are the , Jacfcs ? Out of 79 cases brought before him l>y | Ibe police only 23 convictions followed — " a. ; failure,'' it has been well said, " unprecedented j in this or any other class of crime dealt with in J the courts of law." Here we might refer to the contention of Mr Hawkins that if Parliament refuses to abrogate the law, then " the Executive should put on such a force as to render a breach of the law impossible." What " force," ] with Mr Hawkins on the bench could possibly i do this ? The police might multiply th&ir in- j 'formations, but with the above statistics before \ us the convictions would evidently rise very slowly. We have to ask how Mr Hawkins in the past has treated the police ? He says he •• frequently arrives at a conviction by discrediting a part and crediting other parts of the cvi- i deuce of witnesses for the prosecution, and \ totally discrediting the witnesses for the deleter!" We uoigVtb adduce case after case 5n which the evidence of the alleged ely i grog-seller and his friends has bsea credited and the evidence of constable after constable discredited. Some of the more recent cases will sufficiently support this strong charge. We quote the following fromtbe Clutha Leader o. January 14, 1898 :— " In a case lasi mon<h a police constable and a rabbin agent having met ! ' agreed to have a drink. The constable swore he weofc into the hotel with the agent-, called for j wlr.i»ky, drank it, and paid for it. The agent corroborated this evidence, only from the length | of time that had elapsed he could not tell what iiud of a drink he had. The defendant swore that she oDly supplied a temperance drink, and hi-j Worship, discrediting the two Government j < fficers and crediting the one very much interested witness for the defence, dismissed the J CAse. In another case, on the same day, a eontable swore he went into a hotel with a young saz?, called for a bser, drank it, and paid for it. , £he young man swore to accompanying the constable on the occasion and having a drink, but j could not remember what it was. Again was tbs constable's evidence discredited and the c».r<e dismissed. In a third case three constables saw two men pafsiDg through a township by train rush to an adjoining hotel daring the stoppage at the station. The cons* able followed and found the two men — who were strangers — in the fully equipped bar in the act <.f drinking whisky, the one apparently in the acb of extracting a coin from his pocket to pay i for it. The three constables gave cviuence^to j this effect. The two men swore to a wonderful j story about asking for tea and toast and stealing the whisky. The magistrate said the money might have been p&id had not the constables been so smart, thus implying that a sale had taken place, otherwise there would lif.ve been ! no payment. Yet this ease was also dismitsad. Now, we have no hesitation in saying that any other magistrate nould have convicted in each r>[ these cates, that Mr Hawkins would have . done the same had the evidence been given in other than sly grog cases or by witnesses other lhan police constables." Does tbis record harmonise with the magistrate's assertion that "the law had been fairly pub in operation and tried " ? But we have not yet touched the vital points raised by Blr Hawkins in his report. He leaves | it to be inferred that " the consumption of j alcoholic liquors in the private houses of the Bottlers" has increased under this lavr. I Ho asserLa that " the repressive ms&sures sad

tho penal enforcement of tteta have led feo an open defiance of law and to a disregard of truth in the Magistrate's Court." And thirdly, that " there are dissension and illwill and mutual distrust, and even hatred, syringing up in these little townships and growiDg out of this source." Let us look at these points singly. With regard to the consumption of drink in private houses, Mr Hawkins's report here must surely be amusing reading to any but very ardent pro-liquor men. He says, " I have no evidence which I could bring forward myself " ; and of course the gossip to which he has listened and which he adduces is manifestly contradictory. In clear contrast we place the finding of men who have lived in the district and who know of what they are speaking. The following is the relevant part of the report which we carefully compiled in 1896 : — " The assertion that ' drinking has been transferred from the hotel to the houses of the people ' is without any foundation. No evidence has been adduced in support of it, and we cannot find a single resident who believes it." That the foregoirg is in no way obsolete ia manifest from the rollowing testimonies received from various parts of the Cluths. Electorate. Thus from one portion of the*districti, attested by nine responsible men, we have the following :—": — " To our knowledge very much less alcoholic liquor is consumed in our district since prohibition took effect;, and the houses ia which it is consumed are the e-x-cepHon." 'And from another end of the district five influential men report : "In our opinion the u»e of drink in tti? homes- of tb.9 people has decreased." Even from 'Tapiuiui comes the following : " The drinking ia private houses is on the decrease rather than on the increase." Again, out of 40 office-bearer?, covering a number of district?. 39 bear similar testimony, while from a widciy scattered parish wo are in receipt of the following pertinent testimony: "Wa believe prohibition has affected the use of alcoholic drinks in ths homes of the people very beneficially here. Before the closing of the licensed houses ife was not an uncommon thing to see bottles, demijohns, and even casks, with drunken fathers and mothers, neglected homes and affairs, ragged and half-sfcarved children, and abjeol; misery, where now there are- sobriety, industry, prosperity, and plenty. In fact alcoholic drinks have become ono of the minor evils in this district since the closing in 1893." Again, we would remind the pnblic that theso are the testimonies o? men r&aidiog in the district and rwsed to responsible offices in their respective clmrob^s. Mr Hawkius further asserts that " the repressive measuvts and the penal enforcemeal of them have left to an open defiance of law aad ii disregard of troth in the Magistrate's Court." With reference fco thin, we would first of all enter our strong protest agaiobt the magifUafce'e assertion that "no odium attaches to lying in the witness-box in tbe mind of the ordinary public." In one of our testimonies, supported by nine gentlemen, thtsy lightly term this " a libei on the people," aud add '• the law should be put in operation to punish it." Wnnt, however, has been tho magists&te's attitude to the crime of perjury — which, by tbe way, be ia pleased to term a "fault"? He says, " In some cases it is most deliberate J' And yef. tbe fact remains thafe the law against perjury has never once been put in operation for these case?. Nay, worsa ; ha? Mr Hawkins not niiui? pnblic his determination to hold the law in abeyance because of what be regards *s the undue stringency of its penal clauses ? We quo 1^ aaaiu from the Clutha Leader of January 14-, 1898: "Perhajs other records of the business of the Mag'STate's Court may afford further insight inbo Mr Hawkins's attitude regarding the crime of perjury. In a case heard in that court s few months ego the defendant swera positively and persistently, in the face of all caution and warning, what he knew to be a deliberate falsehood. He even adhered to his falsehood after the moat conclusive evidence, both oral and in wriling, to the contrary. Duriug an adjournment o'afendaut's solicitor had an interview with hi* cliSnt, and subsequently reported to the court that be was satisfied tbat his client bad told an untruth. His Worship then said hs always thought it matler for regret that the stipendiary magistrate had not the power to deal summarily with cases of perjury as they occurred. He said tho defendant bad been guilty of a very serious offence, and had he power to deal sammarily with him he wovild have punished him very severely. A serious responsibility rested on him (the magistrate), but he always bad a reluctance to send a man to gaol, and would not take the initiative ia a prosecution. This one case is sufficient to show the magistrate's attitude regarding the crime of pel-jury. In short, Mr Hawkins condemns the l>).w, and bai suspended all proceedings under i*; until Mit-h time as the Legislature shall amend tha law to meet hi 3 views." The public should also note where the lying comes in. According to the magistrate's own statement it has been on the side of the defendant ; in other words, on the part of tha sly grog-peiler and his associates. Thus, quoting again from a largely-signed r^ply to our queries: "The perjuty to which Mr; Hawkins refers is, according to his own statement, committed by those whose drinking babifcp, formed under the 3ysteoi of license, have fatally dulled their sense of moral obligation." Bat we must come closer to tbis astonishing charge in which the magistrate makes the prohibitory law p'raclically responsible for the lying which is carried on in his court. First of all, is there not a question as to tha reputation previously borne by these perjured witnesses ? Were they recognised as truth-telling men prior to the pressure of the prohibitory law ? Wo leave those who knov them well to answer. But icdeed the assumption that the relation between prohibition and perjury is that of cause and effect is too absurd to require exposure. Every temptation is a testing and often the occasion of stumbling, but the law is not therefore the author of sin. As the editor of the '' Christian Outlook " pats this matter, " The prohibitory law does not create perjurers; ib only discovers and unmasks them." The driak trade has always shown itaelf a lawless trade, ?.ud those engaged in it unscrupulous in attaining their ends. Even on licensed premises there ia prohibition against sale after hours, ags.in*t prohibited persons, and against Suaday fcrafSo, Does Mr Hawkins expect us to believe t'aat ia the numerous caaes before the comt where the evidence for the defence is even elaborate there 13 not systematic lying ? We &lv. here iempisd fco quote from the " New Zealand Wesley t.n Advocate": "In other words, pvcLibitiun hfcs taught an otherwise truthful trade to lie ! Well, "such opinions may do for a magistrate, but to ordinary people like ourselves liquor evidence ail the worid over contains ten times more lies to the cqnare inch than any other kind of evidence, lhe diifcrecce iv Clutha is that there the penalties wero heavier aud the conspiracy batter organised, ao that the parties lied in better concert and up steeper places. Prohibition ir.i'.y uic'te the Ijing devil in the pi<,ri'^a I"jllow lou' 7 r l than usual. BaS ii do".s vo{ Folio,-' ivc '. pi c.'a bition put the said de?il in T^"lc< is. i-orv.e I'viuence that ha was very coo.ljj.'Ubh hur. ' i Jew."

Aad finally, according t; Mr Hawkins, proi faibition is further chargeable with crcacicg in our district " dissension and ilhrill and mutual , distrust, and even hatred." So far as we can judge, these hornets are cufefly confined to the poeuiiar circle with which tho magistrate ia more immediately concerned. But take some testimonies bearing on this : " This condition of matters emphatically is-not the case in our district.' 1 ' Another: "There is little or no dissension. ! Here and there in groups where the question is \ incidectally referred to a little excited talk may take place, bub one may safely say that ! comparatively there is no bickeriug." Even i from Tapauui, to which Mr Hawkins made ' such poiated reference, we have the following : "There was considerable illwill and distrust at the time of the election and at the first convictions registered against the aly grogsellers. But in every fresh case this illwill is fainter. The last case excited comparatively little comment in Tapanui. It is true, however, that some of the strong supporters of publichouses, men who are a 'prey to strong drink, and who celebrated the escape of the I publicans in a carouse immediately after, ' would have attacked the constable who gave evidence, and he had to be protected. But tha general public, and eveu the so-called moderate party as a whole, evinced no such inclination, were perfectly law-abiding, and only showed about the same amouut of interest iv these drink cases that any other criminal case would have excited." Take. Balclutha, where public meetingshave been held and strong statements made. It i is faife iv such a general way to say that " dissension, ill will, mutual distrust, and hatred " hstve been engendered through pro- . hi'nition. Such feeling, where it does exist, is , on the part of interested piTSuna, a.nd does not j represent more than 1 per cent, of tho population. i The above evidence ia supplied by 12 i ministers and 79 ofßce-beareri representing *>very district ia th« Clutha Electorate, and • deals only wit.h the magistrate's report. 'Ihe foliowiag facts ppsak for themselves in I regard to prohibition :—: — AURE3TS FOR DRUNKENNESS. 1899 94. 1594-98. Before Prohi- Since Prohibition, bition. Clinton ..« ... 5t 1 Tapanui , 4(5 0 Balclutha ... ... 63* 5 IS6 6 * This number only represents 3£ years. t We have prepared the foregoing report in the interests '.if truth and i'.ghteoaßn?fs. Other statements we are aware have bean made, and : wa leave the public to decide, confidant that our ; evidence ia in hermony with fcha true position i ot sffsirs.